Punk rockers/anarchists and Libertarians, what is the difference?

[Shadowferal]

top 1 percent of earners accounting for more than a third of all unpaid federal taxes

At least 55 of America’s biggest companies paid no federal taxes on billions in profits

[Machismo]

What the economists determine to be their fair share. They’d still be getting wealthier year on year, just like when we last had a marginal tax rate.

Which economists? Because I can point you to some that would probably greatly disagree with the ones you had in mind.

[Machismo]

top 1 percent of earners accounting for more than a third of all unpaid federal taxes

At least 55 of America’s biggest companies paid no federal taxes on billions in profits

And, if you had actually checked the data provided, you'd see that they pay more than 50% of those taxes, which means their rate of unpaid taxes is actually lower than the other brackets.

- - - Updated - - -

Weird, it’s almost like the data doesn’t support Machismo’s narrative in the slightest.

The data showed that they already pay a higher rate.

Which economists?

[Machismo]

Ones chosen by Congress. I wouldn’t get any that don’t have a good grasp on modern theory... so yours would probably fall short.

- - - Updated - - -



How much would you have them pay?

So, if the GOP controlled Congress, then you'd be fine using their economists?

Interesting.

Less. Oh, and also spend less.

[Muzjhath]

Of all the monopolies that have existed over the past 100 years in the United States, how many were a result of the capitalistic marketplace, and how many were a result of government mandate and protection? If you don't know, we can start listing them off, and see who runs out of names first. I started, it's your turn.

Standard Oil.
Yes, bit more than 100 years ago, but 110 ought to be close enough.

[Machismo]

Standard Oil.
Yes, bit more than 100 years ago, but 110 ought to be close enough.

Well, my turn:

AT&T

[Endus]

How much would you have them pay?

Here's a fun note; consider how many "the market will solve all things" advocates stridently oppose a market-based approach to taxation.

Why not make the amount the wealthy pay "as much as the market will bear"? Keep cranking that figure up until it's barely worth it to continue doing business. If that means they pay 99%, so be it. If they aren't actually fleeing the country or closing their businesses, it isn't negatively impacting the economy.

It seems kind of hypocritical to argue that the wealthy be allowed to use market principles to exploit the workers and consumers, for profit, but their government should avoid using those same principles to exploit the exploiters in turn.

[bladeXcrasher]

Free market monopolies were the best. They brought skrib, factory towns, and child labor. Imagine all the freedumb and liberty we'd have if we just did away with all those pesky anti-trust laws.

[Machismo]

Here's a fun note; consider how many "the market will solve all things" advocates stridently oppose a market-based approach to taxation.

Why not make the amount the wealthy pay "as much as the market will bear"? Keep cranking that figure up until it's barely worth it to continue doing business. If that means they pay 99%, so be it. If they aren't actually fleeing the country or closing their businesses, it isn't negatively impacting the economy.

It seems kind of hypocritical to argue that the wealthy be allowed to use market principles to exploit the workers and consumers, for profit, but their government should avoid using those same principles to exploit the exploiters in turn.

Can we do the same for poor people?

Increase their taxes, and continue increasing until they flee the country, or just drop over dead?

My guess is that you are probably more hesitant to do that. So much for equity.

- - - Updated - - -

Free market monopolies were the best. They brought skrib, factory towns, and child labor. Imagine all the freedumb and liberty we'd have if we just did away with all those pesky anti-trust laws.

Do you want to get in on the fun of all the monopolies, and what caused them?

[Machismo]

All he can say is less when a third of them already pay 0. I guess he thinks we should pay those fortune 500 companies for existing. Wonder how he plans to fund that.

Nope, let's start by cutting spending.

[Ivanstone]

Can we do the same for poor people?

Increase their taxes, and continue increasing until they flee the country, or just drop over dead?

We're already doing that. They can't afford to flee the country but they do drop over dead.

[Machismo]

All he can say is less when a third of them already pay 0. I guess he thinks we should pay those fortune 500 companies for existing. Wonder how he plans to fund that.

- - - Updated - - -



So far your examples are privatizing infrastructure...

They are government-protected monopolies, which is what we're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

We're already doing that. They can't afford to flee the country but they do drop over dead.

I mean, he wants to see how much the market can bear.

[Machismo]

Stop with the goalpost moving, you said start by cutting taxes. What rate should the top 1% pay? Less than the 0 30% already do?

I've been calling for spending cuts for years.

Yes, stop spending increases for 5 years sounds like a moderate place to start.

[Mayhem]

Nope, still not an anarchist, and regulations are still not marketing.

Nope is all you got, regardless of your posts in this thread that I've provided. Never claimed you were an anarchist, try to keep up. You can always refute what I've said with what you actually think or mean but you think a "nope" will be enough, it's not.

[Machismo]

Nope is all you got, regardless of your posts in this thread that I've provided. Never claimed you were an anarchist, try to keep up. You can always refute what I've said with what you actually think or mean but you think a "nope" will be enough, it's not.

Well, what else am I supposed to say when you lie?

Wanting no government is anarchy...

I can simply say you are fucking wrong, and move on.

[Machismo]

And I quoted where you said step 1 is cutting taxes... need it again?

Sure, and I will gladly point to the post from several days ago where I called for stopping spending increases for 5 years. I guess that makes it step 0.

After all, I'm a computer guy.

[Endus]

Well, my turn:

AT&T

Are you under the impression that AT&T's monopoly was government-created?

That's just ahistorical nonsense. AT&T was started as a private business and was a natural monopoly, dating back to the 19th Century. The government pursued antitrust operations against them, and that resulted in the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913, an agreement that largely failed to prevent them remaining a near-monopoly. That lasted basically till 1982, when the government stepped up antitrust proceedings again and broke AT&T up into the "baby Bells".

One of those (the Southwestern Bell Company) has grown explosively since and rebranded as what is now AT&T again, but doesn't hold the same status as before.

Government has always acted as a check on AT&T. They have not ever been a government-created monopoly. Where the hell are you getting this?

[Machismo]

Are you under the impression that AT&T's monopoly was government-created?

That's just ahistorical nonsense. AT&T was started as a private business and was a natural monopoly, dating back to the 19th Century. The government pursued antitrust operations against them, and that resulted in the Kingsbury Commitment of 1913, an agreement that largely failed to prevent them remaining a near-monopoly. That lasted basically till 1982, when the government stepped up antitrust proceedings again and broke AT&T up into the "baby Bells".

One of those (the Southwestern Bell Company) has grown explosively since and rebranded as what is now AT&T again, but doesn't hold the same status as before.

Government has always acted as a check on AT&T. They have not ever been a government-created monopoly. Where the hell are you getting this?

it was a government-protected monopoly for decades, until it was broken up.

[Endus]

Can we do the same for poor people?

Increase their taxes, and continue increasing until they flee the country, or just drop over dead?

My guess is that you are probably more hesitant to do that. So much for equity.

Well, at least you're letting the inhumanity fly free rather than keeping it bottled up.

If you can't tell the difference between taxing the wealthy so they can't afford a third yacht this year, and taxing a struggling family so they can't afford three healthy meals a day any more, then you're making my case for me.

And if you can, then you know your own argument here is dishonest horse shit. And again, have made my case for me.

[Machismo]

How do you plan to fund your government? Who gets taxed?

- - - Updated - - -



Nah, see you didn’t call it step 1. I did. Whether you want to start at 0 or 1, here’s your quote.



So, what’s the top tax rate?

To start? Well, that would depend on how much spending we can cut. After all, a balanced budget is very, very important to me. So, let's start with stopping spending increases for 5 years, and see where the deficit is at that point.